Children Designing & Engineering: Contextual Learning - Cadres

Children Designing & Engineering:Contextual Learning Units in Primary Design and

Technology

Patricia HutchinsonThe College of New Jersey

The Children Designing & Engineering (CD&E) Project at the Collegeof New Jersey is a collaborative effort of the College's Center for Designand Technology and the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce. The Project,funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), has been charged todevelop instructional materials for grades K-5. The twelve thematic unitsunder development integrate science, mathematics, technology and othercontent through design-and-make activities. Activities are coordinated withboth state and national standards and are situated within contexts inspiredby seven New Jersey businesses. Project staff members are also attemptingto explore how design-based activities can provide an early orientation toskills and attitudes sought by employers.

The CD&E project began in 1998 as a three-year effort to helpelementary teachers incorporate design and technology into their teaching.Project collaborators from the College of New Jersey and the New JerseyChamber of Commerce joined forces to design real-world, developmentallyappropriate instructional units that would communicate the unique nature oftechnological pursuits and harness the inherent appeal of design activity as avehicle for learning. The approach taken to the CD&E units draws onresearch from a wide range of current educational orientations, with themost notable among these found in the literature on contextual learning andproblem-based learning. Underlying the materials is a general constructivistperspective, and units feature elements of authentic assessment andcooperative learning. Theories about workplace contexts, learning styles,and multiple intelligences have also informed our design decisions. In thispaper, I will describe how the CD&E project applies theories of contextuallearning, problem-based learning, and Design and Technology (D&T)education to create an amalgam of the three which we call Design &Technology-Based Contextual Learning.

Hutchinson ([email protected]) is Director of the Center for Design -andTechnology in the Department of Technological Studies at The College of NewJersey in Ewing, NJ.

Volume 39 Number 3 Spring 2002

122

Children Designing and Engineering

Unique Nature of Contextual Units in D&TContextual learning units, viewed from a D&T perspective, are

somewhat different from typical thematic units in that technological designis employed as both content and pedagogy. Themes are often thought of asa way to bring the "real world" into the classroom, although fantasy orspeculative worlds can also be engaging to students, especially in earlyelementary school. Non-technological thematic units for elementary schoolstake a subject, perhaps "The Rainforest" (a topic within the sciencecurriculum) or Paddles to the Sea (a book scheduled for study), and expandthat topic into a theme for coordinating lessons in several subject arenas.Within the rainforest theme, teachers can coordinate subjects like science,art, reading, and geography. Teachers create thematic units by bringingtogether and adapting activities within their own repertoire, or purchasecommercially developed units that provide coordinated activities andresources in one curriculum package.

A theme becomes a context when it is sufficiently pervasive andengaging that the classroom is transformed into a different kind of setting,one that transports students to a new environment for learning. This may beaccomplished partly by changing the look of the physical space tocontinually reinforce the "feeling" of the context, but the real key is thatsubjects studied within the context are not just coordinated, but areintegrated. To achieve integration, the context needs to have an embeddedtask, problem, or challenge for which students develop "ownership."Knowledge introduced within that context must be useful in completing thetask, solving the problem, or meeting the challenge. The problem, task, orchallenge can be of many different kinds-scientific, artistic, mathematical,technical, ethical-and so will engage students in different types of inquiryand processes, drawing pertinent information from a variety of fields ineach case. The contextual learning units developed by the CD&E Project allfeature technological challenges within real-world contexts that requirestudents to apply targeted scientific, mathematical, and technicalknowledge, as well as design, communication, and collaboration skills.

The following paragraphs provide a brief summary of three learningtheories that inform the CD&E approach: contextual learning, problem-based learning, and D&T education.

ContextualLearningFrom early in the 20th century, there has been talk about the de-

contextualized nature of learning in schools. Whitehead (1929) used theterm "inert learning" to describe a situation in which students memorize

123

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL TEACHER EDUCATION

definitions of concepts without having the opportunity to apply thoseconcepts in real-world settings. Educational psychologist E.L. Thorndike(1922), writing about mathematical thinking, blamed the disconnectbetween the classroom and the outside world on the content itself, citingsome subjects long deemed to be good mental exercise as simply tooremoved from the skills and knowledge needed for everyday life. Dewey(1916) addressed both content and context by envisioning a type ofschooling where real-world activities form the setting for meaningfullearning. Many educators have tried to follow in Dewey's footsteps over thepast century, although changes in our society have necessitatedcontinuously redefining those necessary skills and knowledge.

Borko and Putnam (2000) have described contextual learning assituated, distributed, and authentic. All learning, they suggest, takes place(is situated) in specific physical and social contexts, and the knowledgeacquired in those settings is intimately associated with those settings. Fortransfer of learning to occur, students must be given multiple similarexperiences in which the similarities are made explicit and an abstractmental model is allowed to form (Greeno, 1997).

The setting in which learning takes place is comprised of manyelements, all of which contribute to our understanding. Therefore, learningis distributed over all these elements (Borko & Putnam, 2000), includingnot only the understandings and attitudes we bring to a situation, but alsothe physical environment, other people, tools, and symbols.

The third component of contextual learning described by Borko andPutnam is the use of authentic activities-activities similar to those thattake place in the real world outside of school. Newmann and Wehlage(1993) suggest that authentic activities have five dimensions:

1. They involve higher order thinking, in that students have tomanipulate information and ideas.

2. They require a depth of knowledge, in order for students to applywhat they know.

3. They are connected to the world in such a way that they take onpersonal meaning.

4. They require substantive communication among students.5. They support achievement by all, in that they communicate high

expectations of everyone, with each individual contributing to thesuccess of the group.

Problem-solving, the everyday work of the real world, is an attribute ofcontextual leaning. To understand the relationship of problem-solving tolearning, however, it is necessary to refer to another field of inquiry.

124

admin

Highlight

admin

Highlight


Problem-Based LearningProblem-based learning (Barrows, 1985) is an instructional approach

originally developed to help medical students learn to diagnose illnesses.Students are presented with a problem situation and' asked to determinewhat is happening. Problem-solving, in this approach, involves a process ofa) engagement; b) inquiry and investigation; c) performance; and d) debriefing,as described by Stepien (1995).

Both contextual learning and problem-based learning can be seen ascontinua, moving from a low to a high degree of application. Highlycontextualized problem-based learning, the optimal meeting of the twoperspectives, features:

o A focus on questions/problems relating to real-world issues.e Self-directed and collaborative learning.* Teachers and students as co-investigators/co-learners.e Ongoing dialogue with practicing experts.* Manipulation of real data.e Exploration of a real workplace, or other real setting through

actual or virtual visits, with opportunities to revisit.o Ongoing formative assessment as well as performance before

an outside (expert) audience.• Comprehensive debriefing. (Pierce & Jones, 2000, p. 79)

Design and Technology-Based LearningA third model, which represents aspects of the preceding two, has been

developed over the past three decades in the United Kingdom. This approach,called Design and Technology (D&T), describes a special instance, orpossibly a sub-set, of contextual problem-based learning, characterized by:

o The use of materials, tools and systems for making or modifyingthings.

o Products, systems, and environments as outputs of the learningprocess.

e Engagement with authentic problems or situations which seemgenuine to students.

e Choice-making, and thereby the need to confront values issues.* The flexible use of a range of procedural strategies (design

process) to identify and solve problems.o The interdependence of product and process in shaping learning.

(Kelly, et al., 1987)

125

126 JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL TEACHER EDUCATION

The Design LoopD&T as a learning strategy employs a design process similar to the

problem-solving process described in problem-based learning. D&T,however, emphasizes practical planning and physical making as necessarysub-activities of the process, as indicated by the model in Figure 1.

obseivlng a cnitexl

Figure 1. The Design Loop (Hutchinson & Karsnitz, 1994) Used with pernission.

The design loop is a variation on the design line, a model often cited inart education, in which a bothersome-or promising-situation is detected(problem identification) and analyzed in order to clarify the real nature ofthe problem or opportunity within it. Once the problem can be clearlydescribed in a "design brief," the designer can begin to articulate a plan.This design brief includes a charge to action ("Design and make a _") andset of specifications (criteria for success along with constraints orlimitations). Research, supplementing what is known about the problem,begins here and continues throughout the design process.

While the human mind tends to begin envisioning solutions almost assoon as a dissonant situation is detected, a clear picture of the problemallows the designer to apply idea-generating strategies (e.g., brainstorming)in productive ways. Experienced designers force themselves to considermultiple solutions to a given problem before evaluating and then choosingor adapting an approach. From this "ideation" phase, the designer begins to


plan the execution of the idea, works out technical details, and marshals theresources needed to realize the envisioned solution. Sketches, diagrams, andlists are among the visible tools of this planning. Realization (the "making"stage) is carried out through early models (akin to early drafts in writing)which are tested, refined, and superceded by more finished versions untilthe solution is completed.

A solution is tested by applying it to the problem for which it wasdesigned, and modifications are often required before a problem isconsidered solved. Publicly presenting the solution and subjecting it to opencritique may expose problems missed by the designer. These steps arealways included when design is employed as a learning strategy.

Because applying the solution may reveal other problems, and becausethe background situation of the problem may change, D&T theorists typicallyportray the design line as a design loop-or even a design spiral-to emphasizethe iterative nature of design. That yesterday's solution can always besuperceded and improved upon (taken "back to the drawing board") isconsistent with our cultural conception of progress.

No designer would characterize the solution of a specific problem inthe lock-step terms suggested by the design line, but most subscribe to themodel as generally descriptive of the process. The arrows that cross the loopand allow two-way traffic between various steps illustrate the flexibility ofthe process. Technical planning may reveal the need for more research, andnew insights into the very nature of the problem may emerge from themaking process.

The Interaction of Hand and MindTechnological design activity always results in tangible outcomes

(products, systems, or environments) with physical modeling and mentalprocesses-reflecting, critiquing, envisioning-as interdependent elementsof learning.

D&T-based learning refers to the human ability to transform ideas intophysical realities. This process of purposeful change, described by Kelly, et.al. (1987) is "a conscious capacity that can be both cognitive (manipulatingideas in the mind) and concrete (manipulating materials to model ideas)" (p.12). The progressive concretizing (modeling) of ideas is extemalizedthrough sketches, drawings, diagrams, and physical models, using tools andmaterials. These authors contend that "this crucial relationship between theactivities inside and outside our minds is interactive rather than sequential,and the total activity is cumulative, experiential and reflective as ideas aretried out and then accepted, modified, or rejected" (p. 12).

127


A model of this interaction offered by Kelly, et al. (Figure 2) suggeststhe growth of understanding that takes place through the designing andmaking process. The zigzag path charts the progress of an idea from anascent glimmer in the mind's eye, shallowly conceived and lacking detail,through progressively refined articulations and increasingly concretemodels.

Internal images in the Coceeepesostamind's eye _ allow us to examine the~~~~~~~reality of an idea

Thinking gets deeper, as the clarity of expressionclearer and more shows up what Is and

detailed what Is not possible.

Figure 2. Relationship of reflection and action in design activity (Kelly, etal., 1987). Used with permission.

Although the progressive nature of creative development portrayed bythis model would resonate with designers of non-physical products-apoem, a dance, an advertising slogan or, for that matter, a learning theory-it is the unique interdependence of hand and mind which distinguishestechnological activity from other kinds of design activities. This aspect ofD&T education is important for several reasons. First, it expands upon themeans of expression available to students, a real advantage from the pointof view of theories of multiple intelligences and differing learning styles.Second, interaction with the material world, especially in young students, isinstinctively appealing and rewarding. It provides expanded sensorystimulation which, when applied in the context of intellectually stimulatingproblems, enriches the learning experience. Finally, from the point of viewof evaluating student learning, D&T activity supplements spoken languageand the written word with images and physical models as documentation ofthe learning process. This residue allows for a much more authenticassessment of the journey a student has taken through the process of

128


recognizing or accepting a challenge and progressively coming to grips withmeeting that challenge.

Combining contextual, problem-based learning with the features ofD&T education allows us to implement a hybrid approach: Design andTechnology-Based Contextual Learning.

Overview of the CD&E UnitsThe recognition of the central role of design in technological activity is

relatively new in this country. The Standards for Technological Literacy,released by the International Technology Education Association (2000),have articulated that role and the importance of design activity as a teachingand learning strategy. Against that backdrop, the College of New Jersey(TCNJ) and the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce (NJCC) were funded in1998 to create instructional materials for elementary schools featuringintegrated learning situated in business-inspired contexts.

The units are intended to engage children in practical design andproblem-solving requiring understandings from math, science, and othersubjects, while also providing an early introduction to careers and toqualities valued in the workplace.

In choosing industry partners, the CD&E Project strove to includecompanies that would enable units to represent a range of sciences-lifesciences, earth science, physics, and chemistry-since a major concern ofour funding agent, the NSF, was the ability of these units to enhancestudents' understanding of science. The career awareness goals of theproject dictated that the units would also represent major employmentsectors in the state, leading us to approach and secure the partner companieslisted below:

e Six Flags Wild Safari (entertainment)* Lucent Technologies (communications/R&D)o Marcal Paper (manufacturing)* Johnson & Johnson (pharmaceuticals)e Ocean Spray Cranberry Products (food production)e Public Service Electric and Gas Company (power utility)* Elizabethtown Water Company (water utility)

Table 1 provides a brief summary of the twelve CD&E units that have beendeveloped.

129


Table 1. Overview of CD&E Units

Unit title Unit descriDtion

Opening Day at the SafariParkSix Flags Unit, grades K-2

Camp KoalaSix Flags Unit, grades 3-5

Bright Ideas PlayhouseLucent Unit, K-2

Say lt with Light, Inc.Lucent Unit, grades 3-5

Earth-Friendly GreetingsMarcal Unit, grades K-2

After a video safari park tour, pupils design andmake a classroom safari park. They learn aboutAfrican animals, natural and built environments,structures, and systems for communication andtransportation; transform their room; then planan opening day celebration and sell tickets tocover the costs of food and souvenirs.

Students design and make a visitors' center forCamp Koala, a new home for an endangeredspecies that is being planned for a local safaripark. Topics include endangerment of animalsand impacts of technology as well as technicalmethods for creating moving displays. Theystage a "Koala Gala" to publicize and raise fundsfor wildlife preservation.

Students explore properties of light, then applywhat they've learned to design and makeshadow puppet plays based on familiar nurseryrhymes, to which they invite guests and chargeadmission.

As employees of a communication company,students learn about the roles of scientists,designers, engineers and marketing professionalsin developing products. They investigate lightand communication, then work asinterdisciplinary teams to propose new productsthat use light for communication and presenttheir ideas to the company's directors.

Students study the waste stream and recyclepaper products into new paper, from which theydesign and make original greeting cards to sell ata class holiday boutiaue.

130


Table 1, continued

Paper Products: You Be the After investigating the claims made by companiesJudge about their paper products, students design and carryMarcal Unit, grades 3-5 out scientific tests, then present their findings in a

classroom version of ConsumerReports.

Waterworks for Watertown Students study science (water cycle, gravity, flow)Elizabethtown Water Unit, and technology (reservoirs, pumps, pipes, valves)grades K-2 in order to understand the needs of citizens of

"Watertown" and design a system to deliver waterto selected locations.

Solar-Powered Energy The local power company has commissioned theSavers class to design solar-powered "give-aways" toPublic Service Electric & Gas publicize and promote energy conservation for aUnit, grades 3-5 community event. Students explore solar heat and

electricity generation, then model and presenttheir ideas.

Cranberry Harvest Festival A video visit to a berry farm sets the stage forOcean Spray Unit, grades K-2 hands-on exploration of the special qualities of

cranberries. Students propose devices andmethods to harvest, sort and grade berries, thenplan and stage a cranberry festival.

Juice Caboose Students learn how companies gauge consumerOcean Spray Unit, grades 3-5 preferences and explore the physiology of taste in

order to propose a new combination juice drink,then mass-produce, package, promote, and launchthe product.

Germbusters & Co. Young students learn how germs travel and howJohnson & Johnson, grades K-2 various products and practices help control their

spread. Then, enlisted by fictional heroine Gina theGermbuster, they make soap, test toothpaste, tissuesand bandages, and design Germbuster Kits forthemselves and other children their age.

Suds Shop Students delve more deeply into germs andJohnson & Johnson, grades 3-5 hygiene, then focus their attention on soaps and

detergents. They learn about the chemistry ofmixtures, suspensions and emulsions; investigateconsumer product preferences, packaging,promotion, pricing and profit; then design andmake soaps for the "Suds Shop."

131


Design of the UnitsThe CD&E Project was carried out in three phases: design,

development, and evaluation. Upon receipt of the award, a project "hometeam" consisting of TCNJ project staff, an NJCC representative, and severaladvisory teachers was established and began meetings to discuss the scope,content, and approach of the planned units.

Design PhaseNJCC representative Dana Egreczky cultivated business partners while

TCNJ staff pulled together industry-specific unit teams (e.g., Six Flagsteam, Lucent team, etc.). Each team (comprised of elementary teachers,curriculum writers, math, science and technology subject specialists,industry and Chamber representatives, and a videographer) was chargedwith the design of a K-2 and a 3-5 unit. In preparation for business sitevisits, packages of readings were assembled and distributed, includingguidelines for looking at companies through the lenses of "technology,""science," and "business." This required studying and then distillingcurriculum standards and other sources into concise conceptual frameworksfor each of these perspectives. The team also developed policies on scope,content, and format of the envisioned units, initially deciding on six- andeight-week units, with a week envisioned as five 45-minute sessions.

The goal of designing to address standards offered special challenges.At the beginning of the project, no national standards for technology hadbeen released. National standards in science and mathematics were writtenfor three-year grade ranges. To interpret these standards with greater grade-level focus, team members reviewed three of the major science and mathtextbooks for each grade and developed interpretive matrices that wereadded to the package of readings and design tools given to unit designteams. Background readings on contextual learning, design-based learning,multiple intelligences, and constructivism were also included in thepackages.

To explore the work of the partner companies, six unit teams carriedout visits to seven companies between September, 1998 and November,2000. At these site visits, industry hosts explained the activities of thecompany and discussed issues related to operations, economics, personnel,work environment, and other factors. Each fact-finding outing ended with abrainstorming session in which team members discussed what they hadseen, offered tentative ideas for instructional units or activities, andidentified questions for further research. Team members divided into twograde-level groups. Each team member was assigned the task of envisioning

132


three possible units and naming each in terms of a tangible outcome-aproduct or system (e.g., a device to communicate with light), an event (e.g.,opening day at the safari park), or an environment (Camp Koala). For eachtitle, a list of weekly foci were requested, along with the beginning of anoutline for the unit. Team members also cited standards to be addressed andbegan listing possible activities to be included in the units. These productswere submitted to the CD&E team, reviewed and critiqued, and thenincorporated in (or rejected from) development plans prepared for summerwriting workshops, and selected unit team members were invited to moveinto the development phase.

Development PhaseCurriculum writing workshops were carried out during the summers of

1999, 2000, and 2001, with project staff developing and refining thematerials during the intervening months. Context-setting videos wereenvisioned as the units developed, some taking the shape of "virtual fieldtrips," while the need for other kinds of scene setting devices became clearas the models for units proliferated.

Three major milestones, each a solution to a problem, marked thedevelopment phase of the project. Early versions of units were tooambitious in scale, and by summer of 2000, the project was in danger ofsinking under the sheer weight of ideas that could be included in a givenunit. It was at this point, two years into the project, that consultantsMalcolm Welch (Canada) and David Barlex (UK) were brought in tocritique the drafts. The two had collaborated on similar projects in both theUK and Canada, and advised us to apply a rule of thumb to our decision-making. They suggested we clearly articulate a single "big challenge" foreach unit and then include only content that would directly help studentsmeet the challenge. Their work with similar units for process-based scienceand technology featured big questions and big challenges, respectively. Thisadvice proved to be extremely helpful in focusing our work and bringingthe units down to a workable scale, as did the suggestion to limit the units tofour to six weeks.

A second problem was the scarcity of math experts who couldappreciate the application of their subject to practical problem-solving andcould recognize and translate engineering mathematics for such youngchildren. Dr. Cathy Liebars, a mathematics professor who had been servingas a consultant to the project, reviewed the units to help optimize mathapplication and suggested the formation of a team of her curriculumstudents. In Spring of 2000, Cathy marshaled the forces of four seniormathematics students and supervised them in writing supplemental math

133

134 JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL TEACHER EDUCATION

activities that could articulate and reinforce mathematics concepts appliedin the units. These supplemental math lessons were added to the CD&Eunits with the suggestion that they be used, as needed, in math periodsduring a unit to reinforce math concepts.

The burden of writing and editing large numbers of lesson plans wasmade easier and more manageable in late 2000 by the addition to the teamof graphic design and production specialist Lori Lozinski. Working withteam curriculum specialist Ellen Farr, the lesson elements were streamlinedand all developing units were brought into a single format.

By late 2000, several units were ready for pilot testing. Bright Ideas-Playhouse, Earth-Friendly Greeting Cards, Opening Day at the Safari Park,Camp Koala and Say It with Light, Inc., were given trial runs in severalNew Jersey schools. An ad in TIES Magazine soliciting interest in remotepiloting resulted in responses from forty states, far more than the projectcould accommodate. Questionnaires returned by pilot teachers were veryhelpful in refining the units.

Instructional Design ConsiderationsIt was originally imagined that units developing out of workplace

contexts could be similarly structured, based on a single instructionalmodel. In that model, students would experience a virtual visit to thecompany, then proceed to create a classroom version of the business, withthe "big challenge" to produce a K-2 or 3-5 version of the company'sproduct or service. In such a model, learning is situated in the authentictechnological problems addressed by the company.

Interaction with Six Flags Wild Safari, the first company to join theCD&E partnership, reinforced this model, although it was clear that fewother companies would have the natural appeal for young childrenpresented by the safari park. The park could easily be interpreted in terms oftechnological problems: housing, feeding, protecting, and transportinganimals and people. Each example provided opportunities for learningabout and applying ideas from life sciences, physics, and mathematics. Inthe Six Flags model, weekly activities for both the K-2 and 3-5 units weredesigned around technology content: structures, mechanisms, transportationand communication systems, environmental and event design. Weeklyprojects provided components of the envisioned environment, which wasthen showcased in a culminating event. This event included authenticcommercial aspects, with tickets for admission, a gift shop and refreshmentsand an external audience of other students, parents, and local businesspeople, who were asked to evaluate the event through a customer survey.


From the earliest piloting efforts, the Six Flags units proved to bepopular with both students and teachers. Interaction with subsequentbusinesses, however, revealed the difficulty in applying a standard model toall units, Although all businesses provide some tpe of product or service,few of these can be easily and engagingly adapted to the elementaryclassroom, and it became clear that each business needed to be examinedfor its unique learning opportunities and interpreted in terms that wouldcapture the imagination of young students. Design team members from thevarious companies, many of whom were also parents, contributedsignificantly to identifying a range of perspectives on their businesses andeventually six types of units evolved (Table 2).

Table 2. Major Business-Inspired Foci of UnitsBusiness Activities Units

R&D Germbusters & Co.Say it With LightSolar Energy SaversLet's Produce Juice

Production Earth-Friendly Greeting CardsSuds Shop

Event Design Bright Ideas PlayhouseCranberry H-larvest Festival

Environmental Safari ParkEngineering Camp Koala

System Simulation Waterworks for Watertown

Product Testing Paper Towels: Kidsumer Report

Many of these activities overlap in the various units. For example, alargely R&D unit will have some production and product testing aspects.All units have a culminating event, although planning of the eventsbecomes a design focus in Bright Ideas Playhouse and the CranberryHarvest Festival. Although it would certainly have been easier to constructunits using a single blueprint, we feel that the range of approaches we'vedeveloped provides a much richer vision of the many activities of industry,

135


and allows us to identify aspects of each company that appeal more directlyto children.

Despite the differing emphases of the units, basic tenets of the CD&Evision have remained consistent. Each unit begins with a context settingdevice in the form of a video, a book, a game or an interactive story on CD-ROM. Initial engagement is followed by presentation of the big challenge,which the teacher helps the students "unpack"-analyze and begin to buildownership of. A KWFL chart, included in most units, prompts students tolist what they Know about the subject, what they WYant to know to begin tosolve the problem, and where they might Find this information. The "L"column, what they have Learned, is revisited as they work their waythrough useful learning activities. In this problem-analysis activity, theteacher essentially leads the class through a preview of the topics that willbe covered in the unit.

Diverse knowledge needed to meet the challenge is acquired in avariety of ways, including research and experimentation, demonstration andpractice, following directions to learn a technique, and constrained problem-solving. Smaller component problems are solved to build toward a cumulativeoutcome, or a range of learning experiences are brought together in the solutionof one major problem. In each unit a culminating business-oriented event, towhich an outside audience is invited, is staged.

Also common to all units is the opportunity for students to work bothindividually and in teams. Each unit includes suggested components for aclassroom resource center, and as the unit progresses the environment of theclassroom becomes increasingly rich and theme-focused. All students areintroduced to a simplified design model and practice using the process asthey solve increasingly demanding problems. Teachers are urged to assumea collaborative role and to use questioning techniques to help students makedecisions. Opportunities are provided for the class to stop at naturalintervals in their projects, to step back and reflect, to share what they aremaking and what they have learned, and to critique their own and theirclassmates work.

The K-2 units that have emerged in CD&E take a broad approach tosubject matter; grade 3-5 units focus on a more discrete aspect of the topic,allowing greater depth of exploration. For example, in the five-week SafariPark unit for grades K-2, weekly topics include:

Week I - Introduction to the challenge with a video visit to the SafariPark

Week 2 - Investigating, designing, and making structures for animalsWeek 3 - Investigating, designing, and making things for workers and

visitors (e.g., clothing, tools, rules)

136


Week 4 - Investigating, designing, and making safari park vehiclesWeek 5 - Planning and carrying out an opening day celebration

In the Safari Park, learning content and meeting the big designchallenge are interwoven activities. The challenge is met cumulatively asthe classroom environment grows over the entire five weeks. Moreadvanced units at grades 3-5, such as Camp Koala, tend to requireconsiderable information-gathering before design work begins. In this unit,students encounter the idea of endangered species and must envision howtheir safari park would accommodate a community of koalas. They thendesign a welcome center for Camp Koala with an interactive display toinform visitors about issues affecting the survival of koalas. To do this, theymust learn about structures, mechanisms, and controlling movement, aswell as exploring effective means of communication.

Each CD&E unit contains a teacher's guide, a guided student portfolio,and a kit of resources. A context-setting video is also provided for mostunits. The teacher's guide contains background on the project, a unitoverview, weekly summaries, daily lesson plans, instruction sheets forvarious activities, transparency masters and templates, evaluation rubrics,and advice for adapting lessons for special needs. Guidance is also providedfor customizing units in order to partner with local industries and to addressstate standards. Staff development, especially in technical and pedagogicalareas not traditionally covered in elementary teacher training, will also beprovided when the units reach the marketplace. Pilot testing hasdemonstrated the need for help with activities such as building with squaresection wood, making cardboard mechanisms, and wiring a circuit.Reviewers and pilot teachers have also requested examples of possiblesolutions to challenges, since many of them are unsure what results arerealistic. These have been provided, where possible. Much attention hasalso been given to the graphic design of a user-friendly format for the units,and pilot testing suggests a level of success in meeting this goal.

Say It with Light, Inc.: A Case in PointSay It with Light, Inc. is the name of a unit designed in collaboration

with Lucent Technologies for the upper level of the 3-5 grade band. Lucentabsorbed and superceded Bell Labs during the deregulation of the BellTelephone network. Like Bell Labs, Lucent is a communications think tankwhose product is ideas. The bulk of Lucent's creative energy goes intoresearch in photonics. When asked what they would like upper elementarychildren to derive from a learning unit, Lucent representatives suggested the

137


topic of communicating with light. Specifically, they wanted children tobegin to understand the many dimensions of light that can be used totransmit information. Because both light and electricity are elements ofnational and state standards at fifth grade, the team targeted that grade level.Say It with Light, Inc. is the most challenging of the CD&E units. It is alsothe most time-consuming for classes that have had no prior experience withtechnology, since it requires technical drawing, modeling, and creating andcontrolling movement, each of which is taught within the unit.

To help teachers understand the structure of the unit, a simplified topicweb is presented in the introductory material (Figure 3). The premise of theunit is that the students will become members of design teams for acompany that makes commnunication products. The central box in the webcontains the big challenge: to design and model a device that communicateswith light, then present that idea to the company management for theirapproval as a new product. The smaller boxes highlight the content thatmust be understood and applied to meet that challenge. Teachers are urgedto introduce the unit challenge and then use an analysis tool such as aKWFL chart to elicit from students what they feel they will need to know tosolve the problem. In this way, the students see the connection to thecontent that they will explore in the coming weeks.

Properties Design, model, Mateial propertiesand present a rproduct that

communicatesCommunication & w with light Planning & making

codes techniques

Electric circuit PersuasiveI ~~~~~~presentations

Figure 3. Say It With Light, Inc. Topic Web

Attempts were made in each unit to create fairly self-contained weeklytopics that would have a degree of closure. The weekly topics for Say It WithLight, Inc. are:

1. Communicating with Light: Lighthouses2. Electricity and Light

138

, Children Designing and Engineering

3. Light, Materials, and Color4. Designing a Communication Product5. Making the Product6. Presenting the Product

Week 1. Communicating with Light: LighthousesThe unit is introduced with an exploration of the idea of communicating

with light through a short design and make activity. In teams of four, thestudents are presented with the scenario that they have been shipwrecked ona deserted island and must build a tall tower to hold up a signal light. Eachteam is given newspapers and tape and in twenty minutes builds a towerthat must hold a one-pound sandbag (lantern). The towers resulting fromthis energetic activity are evaluated using a simple rubric, and afterward thestudents are asked to discuss why a higher tower is better for sending a lightsignal than a lower one. Their discussion leads to a review of basic scienceprinciples: light travels in straight lines from a source; the curve of the earthwill block a light signal at some distance; a source of light can be natural orartificial. The question of the relationship of height of the lighthouse todistance at sea from which the signal can be seen provides the opportunityto explore functions, with dependent and independent variables that can beplotted. A supplemental math lesson is provided to allow the teacher toexplore this mathematical idea if she chooses. Functions are revisited atseveral other points in the unit, with supplemental lessons to reinforce thisconcept.

After this focusing activity, students work toward the week's goal ofcreating a display of New Jersey lighthouses. They carry out historicalresearch and prepare posters to present what they've learned. They performexperiments with lenses and reflectors to see how improvements in lighthousetechnology over the centuries enhanced communication. They learn abouteclipsers, the masks rotated around light sources that enable light patterns-codes-to be transmitted. The week's culminating event is the assembly oflight house models with right angle gears to turn an eclipser around a selfcontained light unit. Class teams customize their models to represent the NewJersey lighthouses they've researched. Around the display, the studentsdiscuss what is meant by communication and are shown the unit's video,"Communicating with Light," a collage with music of real-world examples oflight communication. In their portfolios they summarize what they havelearned in science, technology, history, and math.

The week's activities are intended to take about five hours. During fieldtesting, teachers reported that it took them considerably longer, but they feltthat the experience was very rich and envisioned that it would be shorter the

139


next time around. Technology concepts discussed include the ideas thattechnology solves practical problems and that newer technologies supercedeand improve upon older ones. Students encounter a conceptual modelincluding elements that apply to all communication technologies. They alsoinvestigate a mechanical system (gear train) to transmit energy and changethe direction of motion, and they follow directions to assemble a device.Although they practice a design/make/evaluate process, the experience isnot fully debriefed but is used to establish a pattern for upcoming designactivities.

Week 2. Electricity and LightWeek two is the second of three weeks devoted largely to providing

science content and other knowledge which can then be called upon to meetthe big challenge. Week one reviewed basic properties of light, while weektwo focuses on light and electricity. The first session begins with theassembly by each student of a "credit card flashlight" from instructions.After building and testing, the students reverse engineer the product. Theycreate a three-view drawing with dimensions and hidden lines. Becausethree-view drawing is an example of spatial manipulation (a mathematicscontent standard), a supplemental math lesson is also provided for teacherswho want to reinforce this idea in their math session.

The three-view drawing allows students to isolate and investigate theLED-battery-switch assembly in the flashlight, which provides a lead-in toassembly of a circuit on a demonstration board. Students build and diagrama light circuit using 3-volt batteries, wires and alligator clips, and a bulb.They make a paper-clip switch and compare these components to those intheir flashlight, noting what is essential in a circuit. They try several othercomponents in their circuit to brighten and dim the light, and learn that thiscircuit can be discussed in terms of a system, an important idea intechnology. The systems model to which they are introduced is identical tothe model of a function machine used in mathematics, and a supplementallesson for enlarging upon this idea in math class is provided.

The flashlight the children build allows them to further explore mathand science principles. They revisit dependent and independent variables bymoving their flashlight away from a wall incrementally and comparing thesize and brightness of the area of illumination with the distance from thewall. They practice sending flashlight messages with Morse code, thenconsider ways to transmit light around corners using mirrors. To understandangles of incidence and reflection, they perform experiments and use aprotractor to measure angles. Fiber optic cable is provided and studentsspeculate on how it transmits light, then meet a challenge to send a message

140


around the corner and into the next room using Morse code. The week endsin a discussion of new dimensions of light that might be used forcommunication.

Week 3. Light, Materials and ColorStudents begin their third week exploring light by designing "lens-

holder glasses" into which can be fit a variety of colored and special-effectsfilters, including star filters, refraction grating, and polarizing film. Portfoliopages guide them to note, the visual effects these filters produce. Thisactivity leads them into a discussion of the need for light to see and thephysiology of the eye that allows people to see light, dark, and colors. Theyalso earn that all colors are derived from white light and that the colors weassign to objects are the colors those objects reflect. Experiments are carriedout looking at objects through filters, then with light projected throughfilters. Additive color theory is illustrated, and students use paints toexperiment with subtractive color theory.

In the fnal two days of the third week, student teams apply what theyhave learned about color and filters to design and make a "hidden clues"board game, within a variety of constraints. One constraint is the need for aspinner or dice, and the idea of chance and probability in games isdiscussed; this provides an opportunity for a supplemental math lesson onprobability. Once the games are completed, they are traded, played, andevaluated. The students know that they will soon begin designing theircommunication devices, and the week culminates with a discussion of ideasthat are taking shape.

Week 4: Designing the Communication ProductHaving acquired significant information about and techniques for using

light, the students are now presented with a conceptual design model andare guided through the process of envisioning solutions to theircommunication problem. Three categories of communication devices areprovided to help focus their efforts, two fairly directive and one more open.These include:

1. Design a device that uses light signals and code to help a parent tell adeaf child three different messages.

2. Design and model a holiday lantern that communicates a holidaymessage.

3. Design and model a new product of your choice that communicates amessage with light.

Because this unit has been designed to provide insight into the workings ofan R&D company, the students are introduced to the idea of design teams

141


comprised of scientists, engineers, designers and marketing specialists.They carry out an activity to differentiate the contributions that each ofthese members might make to the design process, and decide which of theseroles each wants to assume for their design team. By the end of the fourthweek they have brainstormed ideas for their project, selected and developedone of these ideas, and found the resources they will need.

Week 5: Making the ProductDuring week five, the students practice several drawing techniques that

will help them refine their ideas. Some may also build quick, preliminarymodels. Tool demonstrations are carried out. The students are checked outon the equipment they need and review the safety rules.

Standards of quality construction are also discussed, and studentscritically reflect on what constituted good workmanship on earlier projectssuch as the lighthouse, the flashlight, the glasses, and the game (all of theseproducts are displayed around the classroom). The teams spend the remainderof the week building, testing, and improving their models. The weekculminates with demonstrations and critiques of the models, which can stillbe improved before the final presentation.

Week 6: Presenting the ProductIn the final week, students learn about making persuasive presentations,

using charts and graphs, creating effective graphics, and using projectorsand visual aids. They review rules for public speaking. Many presentationtechniques are familiar from language arts, since oral presentation is awidely practiced component of both state and national standards. Evaluationforms for the audience are provided with the unit. The students make theirpresentations on the next to the last day of the unit, and during the finalclass session they review their evaluations, discuss what they have learnedand how they might have improved upon their solutions, and celebrate theirhard work with a light snack.

Evaluation of the CD&E ProjectFour CD&E units were evaluated in the Washington Township School

District in southern New Jersey. This district was selected for severalreasons. The administration has worked with earlier projects of our designteam, and some of their teachers served on CD&E unit design teams. Thedistrict supported the teachers in arranging their schedules to accommodatethe rather demanding field test. The evaluation plan called for field testingeach unit with a pair of partner teachers, one who had received training inD&T methods and one who had not. All teachers received instructional

142


materials, videos, tools, and consumable resources and were provided oneday's training before beginning work with their unit. All were compensatedfor their time above and beyond their typical work day.

Bright Ideas Playhouse was field tested in two first grade classrooms inHurffville School; Opening Day at the Safari Park in two second grades atWhitman School; Camp Koala at one third grade, and Say It with Light,Inc. at two fifth grades at Birches School. One third grade teacher had todrop out of the field test because of illness.

Field tests took place between February and June, 2002. CD&E projectevaluator Dr. Kenneth Welty of the University of Wisconsin, Stout, developedinstruments for evaluation of science, math, and technology content targeted inunit objectives. These instruments are extremely user-flriendly for youngchildren and have been designed to test both factual knowledge andapplication of principles. Because of the reading ability of the youngestchildren, and the inclusion in all classes of special needs students, Dr. Welty"performed" the evaluations for some of the classes, using devices likeshadow puppets, actual objects, and pictures on overheads to demonstratehis questions. Evaluation data collected during the five months of fieldtesting is not tabulated as of this writing, but debriefings with the studentsafter the testing suggests a high rate of understanding, particularly of thescience concepts tested. Further comment can be made from interviews withteachers, observation of classes, discussion with students, and review ofwork in progress and final products generated by the classes.

Teachers were generally enthusiastic about their units and about thereactions of their students. Some noted that, while this type of unit takesmore time than some teaching approaches, it is authentic and likely toprovide more lasting learning. Most teachers felt that the units hadaddressed their science curriculum well. Fewer felt that the units taughtmath, although in all cases they felt that math processes and principles wereapplied. Those teachers with D&T training recognized the technologycontent beyond the building and making techniques, but most of theteachers who had not received D&T training were unclear about whatconstituted technology content.

Many students commented on what they had learned and, weeks afterthe end of the units, could talk at length about science concepts and abouthow much they liked designing and making things. Several studentscommented that this kind of schoolwork made them feel like grown-ups.When asked where they had learned a number of different science andtechnology concepts, they cited their own designing and making as thesource of the understanding.

143


ConclusionWhile significant bodies of research exist on contextual and problem-

based learning, study of D&T-based learning is just beginning. Earlyobservations are providing interesting results: schools in Philadelphia,Virginia, and Maryland, where teachers have been prepared through ProjectUPDATE (a previous NSF-funded project based at TCNJ) to use thismethod are showing overall gains on standardized tests (Todd & Hutchinson,2000). Many of the effects reported anecdotally are also consistent withresearch findings summarized by Pierce and Jones on problem-based leaningin science and mathematics, and its positive effects in the areas of motivation,self-direction, retention, conceptual transfer, small group collaboration, andteachers' attitudes (Pierce & Jones, 2000, p. 83).

Our experiences with the CD&E Project suggest some directions forresearch in Design and Technology, a critical need if the potential of thisinstructional approach is to be realized.

ReferencesBarrows, H.S. (1985). How to design a problem-based curriculum for the

preclinical years. New York: Springer Publishing Company.Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (2000). The role of context in teacher learning

and teacher education. In Contextual teaching and learning:Preparing teachers to enhance student success in the workplace andbeyond, (pp. 34-67). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult,Career and Vocational Education.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education New York: MacmillanGreeno, J.G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions.

Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5-17.Hutchinson, J., & Karsnitz, J. (1994) Design and problem-solving in

technology. Albany: Delmar Publishers, Inc.International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for

technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston,VA: International Technology Education Association.

Kelly, A.V., Kimbell, R. A., Patterson, V.J., Saxton J., & Stables, K.(1987). Design and technological activity: A framework forassessment. London:Assessment of Performance Unit of theDepartment of Education and Science.

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G.G. (1993). Five standards of authenticinstruction. Educational Leadership, 50 (7), 8-12.

144

Children Designing and Engineering 145

Pierce, J. W., & Jones, B. F. (2000). Problem-based learning: Learning andteaching in the context of problems. In Contextual teaching andlearning: Preparing teachers to enhance student success in theworkplace and beyond (pp. 69-95). Columbus, OH: ERICClearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education.

Stepien, W.J. (1995). A guide for designing problem-based instructionalmaterials. Aurora, IL: Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy.

Thorndike, E.L. (1922). The psychology of arithmetic. New York:MacMillan.

Todd, R., & Hutchinson, P. (2000). The transfer of design and technology tothe United States. In R. Kimbell (Ed.), Proceedings of the DATAMillennium Conference, (pp. 215-222). London: Design and TechnologyAssociation.

Whitehead, A.N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: MacMillan.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Children Designing & Engineering: Contextual LearningUnits in Primary Design and Technology

SOURCE: Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 39 no3 Spr 2002PAGE(S): 122-45

WN: 0210502318008

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:http://www.coe.uga.edu/naitte/

Copyright 1982-2004 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

Documents

Children Designing & Engineering: Contextual Learning - Cadres